education sector response to early and unintended …...december 2015 ministry of education...
TRANSCRIPT
Education Sector Response to Early and Unintended Pregnancy: A Policy Dialogue in Homa Bay County, Kenya
CHI-CHI UNDIE, IAN MACKENZIE, HARRIET BIRUNGI Population Council
STEPHEN BARONGO, DIOSIANA AHINDUKHA, CALEB OMONDI Homa Bay County Department of Education, Ministry of Education
KENYA
MEETING REPORT
DECEMBER 2015
Ministry of Education
Education Sector Response to Early and Unintended
Pregnancy: A Policy Dialogue in Homa Bay County, Kenya
CHI-CHI UNDIE, IAN MACKENZIE, HARRIET BIRUNGI
Population Council
STEPHEN BARONGO, DIOSIANA AHINDUKHA, CALEB OMONDI
Homa Bay County Department of Education, Ministry of Education
STEP UP MEETING REPORT
DECEMBER 2015
i
The STEP UP (Strengthening Evidence for Programming on Unintended Pregnancy) Research Programme
Consortium (RPC) generates policy-relevant research to promote an evidence-based approach for improving
access to family planning and safe abortion. STEP UP focuses its activities in five countries: Bangladesh, Ghana,
India, Kenya, and Senegal. STEP UP is coordinated by the Population Council in partnership with the African
Population and Health Research Center; The International Center for Diarrhoeal Disease Research –Bangladesh
(icddr-b), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Marie Stopes International; and Partners in
Population and Development. STEP UP is funded by UK aid from the UK Government.
www.stepup.popcouncil.org
The Population Council confronts critical health and development issues—from stopping the spread of HIV to
improving reproductive health and ensuring that young people lead full and productive lives. Through biomedical,
social science, and public health research in 50 countries, we work with our partners to deliver solutions that lead
to more effective policies, programs, and technologies that improve lives around the world. Established in 1952
and headquartered in New York, the Council is a non-governmental, non-profit organization governed by an
international board of trustees. www.popcouncil.org
Suggested citation: Undie C, Mackenzie I, Birungi H, Barongo S, Ahindukha D, and Omondi C. 2015. “Education
sector response to early and unintended pregnancy: A policy dialogue in Homa Bay County, Kenya,” STEP UP
Meeting Report. Nairobi.
© 2015 Population Council
Please address any inquiries about STEP UP to the RPC co-directors:
Dr. Harriet Birungi, [email protected]
Dr. Ian Askew, [email protected]
Funded by
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... iii
Project Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Participation and Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 2
Opening Remarks ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Emerging Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 10
Appendix 1: Participant List ................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendix 2: Meeting Agenda ................................................................................................................................ 16
iii
Acknowledgments We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Partnership to Strengthen Innovation and Practice in
Secondary Education.
Our appreciation goes to the Homa County Department of Education, including the Sub-County Directors of
Education in particular, who attended the policy dialogue event described in this report. We also would like to
sincerely thank all the school principals who devoted their time to the policy dialogue. Our perspectives on the
implementation of the school re-entry policy were greatly enriched by their discussions.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Jane Musia for her tireless efforts in coordinating the highly successful meeting. We
express our sincere thanks to colleagues and interns at the Population Council for excellent technical and/or
logistical support during the meeting: Joyce Ombeva, Janet Munyasya, Francis Obare, and Nicolas Camara.
Homa Bay
County School
principals
engaging and
reflecting
during the
policy
dialogue.
1
Project Background In collaboration with the Strengthening Evidence for Programming
on Unintended Pregnancy (STEP UP) Research Programme
Consortium, the Population Council has implemented a project
since 2014 to increase the demand for secondary school education
in Homa Bay County, Kenya – an area characterized by high,
unintended teenage pregnancy and female school drop-out rates.
The main strategy employed for achieving this goal involves drawing
on various communication channels for enhancing awareness in
schools and communities of Kenya’s school re-entry policy for out-
of-school teenage mothers. This policy was introduced in 1994 to
facilitate pregnant learners’ re-entry into the school system after
childbirth. It is undergirded by the country’s National School Health
Policy, which permits pregnant learners to remain in school for as
long as possible.
The communication channels employed under the project to
increase awareness of the school re-entry policy include: dialogues
with school principals; an interactive media campaign targeting
schools and communities; and evidence-based advocacy1 for
stakeholder adherence to the policy implementation guidelines. The
overall strategy is expected to lead to the following changes in Homa
Bay County:
revitalization of Kenya’s school re-entry policy among
stakeholders (e.g., Ministry of Education officials, out-of-
school teenage mothers, schools, communities);
improved implementation of Kenya’s school re-entry
policy; and
enhanced demand for, and access to, secondary school
education for out-of-school teenage mothers.
To foster awareness of the school re-entry policy in Homa Bay
County schools, the Population Council collaborated with the Homa
Bay County Department of Education (Ministry of Education) to
convene a policy dialogue for all principals of public, day, girls-only,
and co-educational secondary schools in Homa Bay County. The
policy dialogue was held on August 1, 2014 in Kisumu, Kenya. This
report details the proceedings of the meeting.
1 ‘Advocacy’ is defined here as ‘the continuous and adaptive process of gathering, organizing and formulating information and
data into an effective argument, which is then communicated to policy-makers through various interpersonal and mass media
communication channels. Through advocacy, [we seek] to influence policymakers, political and social leaders, to create an
enabling policy and legislative environment and allocate resources equitably’ (UNICEF, n.d., p. 12.).
Box 1: Guidelines for Implementing the School Re-entry Policy
Girls who become pregnant should be admitted back to school unconditionally.
Head teachers, District, and Municipal Education Officers should assist such girls to join other schools to avoid psychological and emotional suffering.
Intensive guidance and counseling should be provided to affected girl, parents, teachers, and other girls in school.
Once a girl is sent home, the parents should be summoned to the school and receive some counseling, after which they should take their daughter home. Head teachers and other teachers should be understanding and patient while handling cases of this nature.
The school should keep in touch with such girls and their parents so as to monitor what is happening and provide the necessary moral, emotional, and spiritual support. Counseling for both the girl and the parents should not be discontinued.
The parents should seek readmission of their daughter to school after the baby is weaned. Head teachers should provide the necessary help in this regard. In case of any problem, the Provincial, District and Municipal Education Officers should assist.
Other girls in the school should be counseled on consequences of irresponsible behavior, adolescent sexuality, boy/girl relationships, negative peer influences, building self-confidence and self-esteem.
Those who make girls pregnant should be exposed. For example, teachers and other adults should face legal action. Boys should be given counseling so that they can take responsibility for their actions.
Source: MOE, 1998, pp.1-2 (as cited in
Muganda-Onyando & Omondi, 2008, p.45).
2
Participation and Objectives Nearly two hundred participants attended the one-day meeting, representing the Homa Bay County Department of
Education; the Population Council; the Centre for Social Sector, Education, and Policy Analysis; and 171 school
principals (see Appendix 1 for a participant list).
The policy dialogue was guided by the following specific objectives:
Provide a forum for school principals to be reminded of, and to deliberate upon, existing education policies
developed to ensure continued schooling for pregnant/parenting learners;
Gain a sense of the prevailing attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about such policies among school
principals;
Gain insight into facilitators and barriers to implementing such policies from the perspective of school
principals; and
Identify good practices in the implementation of these policies by school principals.
The meeting provided an opportunity for experience-sharing, lesson-learning, and problem-solving among
participants. For the Homa Bay County Department of Education, the policy dialogue was also a forum for taking
stock of progress in regard to school re-entry policy implementation.
The meeting was structured around plenary sessions (which included presentations and discussion) and small
group discussions (see Appendix 2 for the agenda).
Opening Remarks The policy dialogue event was officially opened by Mr. Stephen Barongo, Homa Bay County Director of Education.
Mr. Barongo cordially welcomed participants and thanked them for their contributions toward girls’ education in the
county. He reminded them that education is a basic right within the Constitution of Kenya, and highlighted early
marriage as being one of several key issues plaguing Homa Bay. Mr. Barongo also pinpointed the issue of unsafe
abortion in Homa Bay, urging school principals to counsel pregnant learners compassionately in order to avoid this
circumstance. Emphasizing that the fifth Education for All goal has to do with eliminating gender disparities by
2015, Mr. Barongo affirmed the commitment of the Government of Kenya to achieving this goal. He enumerated
several relevant policy responses that demonstrate this commitment, including:
Development of the Gender in Education policy;
Development of a gender-responsive curriculum as recommended in the Gender in Education policy;
Implementation of affirmative action, involving the incorporation of male teachers into early childhood
development;
Provision of sanitary pads, school bags, uniforms, and shoes, to learners;
Establishment of low-cost boarding schools, particularly for girls;
Provision of separate toilets in schools for girls and boys;
Advocacy against retrogressive cultural practices (e.g., female genital cutting); and
Enforcement of the re-admission of girls who dropped out of school due to pregnancy.
3
The Homa Bay County Director of Education urged participants to demonstrate their commitment to the county by
supporting the implementation of the school re-entry policy. He concluded by saying, ‘When you educate a man,
you educate an individual. When you educate a woman, you educate the community.’
Following the opening remarks, a framing presentation was given by the Population Council to situate the issue of
unintended pregnancy in schools in the context of Homa Bay County. The presentation drew on available statistics
for Homa Bay around teenage pregnancy, compared to the national picture; outlined Kenya’s policy responses to
school pregnancy; and delineated the contents of the school re-entry policy and the National School Health Policy.
Subsequently, interactive sessions commenced via the plenary and small group discussions. The latter were
guided by the following question prompts:
What are your opinions regarding the school re-entry policy?
What are your opinions about permitting pregnant learners to remain in school for as long as possible, as
stipulated in the National School Health Policy?
To what extent have you been able to implement the re-entry policy in your school?
What barriers/factors have prevented or hindered the implementation of this policy in your school?
What factors have helped you to implement the re-entry policy for girls in your school?
What are some of the best practices in implementing the school re-entry policy that you can share from
personal experience?
Highlighted in the remainder of this report are the key themes and discussion points that emerged from the plenary
and small group discussions.
Emerging Issues Issues arising from the dialogue session enabled school principals to reflect on the history behind Kenya’s school
re-entry policy, their designated role in implementing the policy, and their challenges and successes in doing so.
The presence of Ministry of Education representatives at the meeting also provided an opportunity for principals to
specify their support needs in order to ensure optimal implementation of this policy in the future.
Critical issues emerging from the one-day policy dialogue are detailed below.
Unintended pregnancy among learners is a key concern of school principals.
Repeat pregnancies by parenting girls re-entering school were continually highlighted by participants during the
meeting as a major concern. School principals noted with consternation that many re-entering girls (who initially
left school due to unintended pregnancy) ended up having multiple pregnancies. Some therefore regarded it as
futile to promote school re-entry for teenage mothers. Furthermore, participants voiced concerns about pregnancy-
related illnesses and dietary needs of pregnant learners, and pointed out that they were ill-equipped to attend to
such matters in their school contexts. Unsafe abortion by students
was also a recurrent theme of these discussions. A number of
principals viewed early and proactive detection of student
pregnancy by schools as a means of mitigating unsafe and late-
stage abortions, which could adversely affect the health of students.
I have had fifteen pregnant girls in my school in one term.
--Participant comment
4
As a result of these issues, some principals raised the need for accessible contraceptive services for students in
general. On the other hand, a number of principals pointed out that some of their female students were married
and therefore ‘needed’ family planning. However, the majority of school principals remained silent on the issue of
contraception during this plenary discussion, and one only one principal publicly argued against making
contraception accessible to students. A few participants opined that having special schools solely for pregnant
learners would enhance the implementation of the school re-entry policy by helping to ensure that the specific
needs of such learners can be attended to. Discussions around this topic clarified the need for further dialogue
with principals on this issue, and for context-appropriate interventions for mitigating unintended pregnancy in
schools.
Efforts must be made to reframe unintended pregnancy in schools as a ‘rights’ issue, as opposed to a ‘disciplinary’ issue.
Plenary and group discussions demonstrated the tensions that participants experienced in viewing unintended
pregnancy in schools beyond the traditional, disciplinary framework with which the phenomenon has historically
been associated. Despite the school re-entry policy’s clause on the unconditional readmission of parenting
students, many school principals were of the opinion that parenting girls (who left school due to pregnancy) should
only be readmitted if they demonstrated remorse for falling pregnant. Participants noted that parenting students
were more likely to be readmitted by schools if they were known to be well-behaved, showed academic promise,
or were particularly talented in some area.
Sending a pregnant girl away from school was also seen by some principals as a measure to help ensure that their
peers ‘learn a lesson’ and refrain from becoming pregnant themselves. The concern that readmitting teenage
mothers into schools would have a negative influence on other students was a prevalent one among participants.
These concerns plausibly derive from the training of school personnel, which frames school-based, unintended
pregnancy as a disciplinary issue, deserving or requiring disciplinary measures. However, in the era of education
rights and inclusive education, such training must be adjusted to emphasize the right of even pregnant and
parenting learners to education. Importantly, such training should target both the pre-service and in-service levels.
Reputational risks for schools and school principals are an under-investigated aspect of the school re-entry implementation process.
There is a need to understand the reputational risks that implementing the school re-entry policy poses for school
principals. Participants devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing this subject. Schools’ reputations were
perceived to suffer as a result of unintended pregnancy, partly
because of principals’ conceptualization of pregnancy as disability.
School principals were of the opinion that pregnant learners (who
are presumed to be perpetually ill) would affect their schools’
‘Mean Grade’ (an average score/ranking given to each school
annually, based on the combined average grade of its students).
School principals felt pressurized to ensure that as many students as possible had strong grades so that their
schools could maintain respectable ‘Mean Grades.’ A respectable score would draw the positive attention of
prospective parents and students, and would ensure that the school concerned remained in demand. Balancing
the Ministry of Education’s expectation for schools to produce good grades with its expectation for schools to keep
pregnant learners (who were perceived to perform poorly) in school was seen as a major challenge by many
principals.
Until education is all-round (holistic), rather than focused on ‘The Mean,’ this [school re-entry] policy will never move anywhere.
--Participant comment --Participant comment
5
Principals explained that, in addition to their schools’ reputations, they also had their own professional reputations
to protect. Some participants who had tried to encourage school continuity for pregnant learners suffered damage
to their reputations, being accused by the community of promoting
immorality in school. Maintaining their professional reputation
before prospective parents when visibly pregnant learners are
present in school was noted to pose a formidable challenge for
principals. Others voiced concerns about the prevalent assumption
that principals are often perpetrators of sexual violence and responsible for the pregnancies experienced by their
students. These concerns provided further incentive for school principals to ensure that pregnant learners did not
feature in their school environment.
Engagement of key stakeholders in policy development is essential for avoiding policy misalignment and ensuring effective implementation.
The lack of involvement of school principals in developing the school re-entry policy was highlighted by participants
as a barrier which led to a lack of understanding of the policy, its rationale, and implementation procedures. Indeed,
out of the 171 school principals in attendance, none had ever seen
an actual copy of the school re-entry policy. As one participant
explained: ‘We have gone through hard life because of policies
that we were not involved in. … We were never inducted. We were
never told what to do.’
As the dialogue provided space for principals to consider the policy, questions arose during the meeting about the
proper timing of readmission for parenting girls returning to school. While the school re-entry policy implementation
guidelines indicate that readmission should be sought ‘after the baby is weaned’ (see Box 1), the National School
Health Policy stipulates that ‘[n]ewborn babies must be allowed the benefit of breastfeeding as much as possible
including exclusive breastfeeding for six months and introduction of complementary feeding at 6 months of age
while continuing breastfeeding’ (MOPHS & MOE, 2009, p. 23). However, these instructions imply that all parenting
girls will want to breastfeed, and for the same length of time – or that all pregnant learners will carry their
pregnancies to term. Participants agreed that the timing of readmission should be decided on a case-by-case
basis, and should depend on several factors, including the point at which the student left school, the duration of
her time away from school, and her own perceived capacity to cope academically at a particular stage of
readmission. Part of the discussion centered on the fact that, while the school re-entry implementation guidelines
indicate that pregnant learners should be ‘sent home,’ the National School Health Policy states that such learners
‘shall be allowed to continue with classes for as long as possible’ (ibid.). This instance of policy misalignment left
school principals uncertain of how to effectively implement the school re-entry policy. The discussion underscored
the need to institutionalize the periodic sensitization of principals by the Ministry of Education, in addition to making
actual policy documents available to new cohorts of stakeholders.
Parents are important stakeholders in the school re-entry process.
A common refrain during the discussion sessions centered on the need to bring parents on board as part of the
school re-entry process. School principals pointed out that while
schools are often accused of having inadequate responses for
mitigating unintended pregnancy, the roles and responsibilities of
parents and homes are usually overlooked. Parents were noted to
have several capacity-building needs, including: parenting classes
We’ve been asked [by parents] if our schools are maternity wards or pregnancy centers.
--Participant comment
I think the principal is a lone-ranger in the fight against teenage pregnancy.
--Participant comment
Let’s start with the parents. … A lot of the factors that lead to pregnancy should be addressed at home. --Participant comment
6
to provide support and know-how for raising teenage girls; knowledge of how to maintain strong relationships with
school administrations (which was said to facilitate easier access to school re-entry support); and sensitization on
the fact that a girl’s pregnancy should not spell the end of her education.
The issue of childcare for teenage mothers was also raised in the context of this discussion. While there was
agreement that some parents would be willing to help out with childcare, meeting participants pointed out that a
considerable proportion of pregnant and parenting learners in Homa Bay happen to be orphans. Finding ways for
secondary schools to forge links with the Early Childhood Development and Education arm of the Homa Bay
County Department of Education was a recommended action for attending to this issue.
While it is an important issue, stigma is not always a factor in girls’ re-entry decisions.
There was a perception among some participants that parenting girls prefer to be readmitted to other schools
(rather than to the ones in which they fell pregnant) to avoid stigma and discrimination. Some principals spoke from
personal experience with pregnant learners in their schools, who opted for readmission elsewhere. Meeting
participants also pointed out that pregnant girls’ self-stigma was often responsible for their leaving school, as
opposed to coercion by school principals. Nonetheless, a number of principals also had personal experiences with
girls who preferred to return to their original schools after pregnancy, and actually did so.
The school re-entry policy implementation guidelines presume that parenting students would want to re-enter
different schools ‘to avoid psychological and emotional suffering’ (see Box 1), and offer instructions for supporting
such students to find new schools as a result. Although well-intentioned, it is imperative to also encourage and
support students who are still comfortable in their original school environment to re-enter these settings. Such
efforts should be coupled with concrete efforts to address school-based stigma and discrimination against
pregnant/parenting learners.
Cultural realities in Homa Bay can serve to strengthen responses for parenting students.
Participants drew attention to certain cultural issues in Homa Bay County which need to be considered and
understood to ensure optimal responses for parenting girls wishing to re-enter school. For instance, participants
noted that childbirth is celebrated in the community. The experience of childbirth raises a teenage girl’s status and
that of the newborn’s father in the eyes of the community. While this cultural reality may pose challenges for girls’
education, school principals noted that it could also be helpful in ensuring that school re-entry by parenting girls is
not hindered by a sense of ‘shame’ (due to early pregnancy) on the part of parents. Participants also indicated that
parents who take pride in their daughters’ pregnancies would be more likely to provide childcare support.
The school re-entry policy guidelines include a counseling stipulation for boys ‘so that they can take responsibility
for their actions’ (see Box 1). Furthermore, the National School Health Policy indicates that ‘[c]hild-fathers (boys
less than 18 years) shall receive counseling and rehabilitation’ (MOPHS & MOE, 2009, p. 23). School principals
questioned the utility of these counseling and rehabilitation requirements, given that such boys are regarded as
‘heroes’ in their communities due to their fatherhood status. It was agreed that the targets and content of such
counseling would have to be carefully determined in order to ensure it is beneficial for all concerned. Several
participants voiced the opinion that there should be penalties for boys and men responsible for school girls’
pregnancies. However, the goal of keeping both girls and boys in school, despite their complicity in school-based
unintended pregnancy, was emphasized.
7
Principals also raised the cultural taboo of parents sharing a dwelling unit with daughters of reproductive age. As
a consequence of this taboo in Homa Bay County, adolescent girls often share dwelling units with their much more
lenient grandmothers. Consequently, parents are less able to monitor activities that could lead to unintended
pregnancy. Looking forward, this reality would be important to consider in pregnancy prevention programs.
Despite minimal resources, principals are innovating with good practices to respond to unintended pregnancy in schools.
Although none of the school principals in attendance had ever seen a copy of the school re-entry policy, and a
considerable proportion (20%) had not heard of it, many principals were responding to girls’ school re-entry needs
in useful and inspiring ways. Small group and plenary sessions were devoted to giving participants an opportunity
to share their individual practices with one another, and to ask/answer questions about modalities for implementing
them. A summary of good practices being implemented by principals in their individual schools is provided here:
Using parenting students as resources: e.g., having such students talk to other girls in school about the
realities of being pregnant or a teenage mother, as a means of steering them away from teenage pregnancy.
Introducing flexi-time for parenting students: e.g., giving such students longer break periods in order for them to return home to nurse their babies.
Setting up a ‘nursing zone’ for parenting students, rather than having them return home to nurse, thereby taking away from learning time.
Making arrangements with selected teachers for extra tutoring for parenting students, who often miss parts of classes when they return home to nurse.
Granting special permission to married, parenting students to leave school for a few hours in order to attend a family planning clinic.
Inquiring about pregnant learners’ expected due dates, and advising them to leave school two months prior to prepare for delivery.
Maintaining contact with pregnant learners’ parents after they have left school, to ensure that school re-entry occurs.
Providing proper guidance and counseling.
These positive, independently-implemented practices demonstrate a great extent of willingness on the part of
school principals to play a key role in implementing the school re-entry policy. Such efforts can and should be
encouraged, supported, and built upon to ensure optimal implementation of the policy.
Additional stakeholders must be involved to holistically address unintended pregnancy and foster school re-entry at the secondary school level.
Sub-County Directors of Education expressed concern over the fact that boarding school principals were not
included in the policy dialogue. They noted that boarding schools are equally affected by unintended pregnancy,
and that principals of such schools are actually more likely to prohibit the re-admission of parenting girls. They also
highlighted the need to involve primary schools in school re-entry responses, given that school drop-out due to
unintended pregnancy occurs at this level of schooling as well. While the importance of boarding schools in school
re-entry processes is not debated, participants were informed that the current project focuses on secondary
schools which benefit from Free Secondary Education (i.e., public day schools), to help minimize financial barriers
for girls wanting to re-enter school.
8
An additional concern emphasized by Sub-County Directors of Education had to do with motorcycle transporters
(boda-bodas). The latter were strongly perceived by Directors and school principals alike as being responsible for
a considerable proportion of unintended pregnancies among school-going girls, given their ubiquitous presence in
the community as transportation providers between the home and school. However, recent findings from the
baseline survey conducted to assess interventions under the current project are not clear on the complicity of boda-
bodas in school pregnancy (Undie, Birungi, Odwe, & Obare, 2015). The vast majority of out-of-school teenage
mothers (89%) reported being impregnated by their ‘boyfriends’ – 37 percent of whom happened to be their fellow
students when they were in school. The remaining 52% were reported to be boyfriends who were not fellow
students (ibid.). It is unclear whether any boda-bodas fell in this category of non-student boyfriends, and were
therefore not referred to by respondents as motorcycle transporters. Only 6 percent of out-of-school teenage girls
specifically reported that ‘boda-bodas’ were responsible for the pregnancy that led to their school dropout.
Sub-County Directors of Education asked that future interventions to promote school re-entry for girls include
Information, Education, and Communication materials based on the school re-entry policy and associated
reproductive health issues. Importantly, school principals commented on the influence of Sub-County Directors of
Education, noting that if the latter decided to prioritize the implementation and monitoring of the school re-entry
policy, this would automatically become a priority for principals.
Conclusion The policy dialogue event helped to create visibility around the issue of unintended pregnancy in schools and the
need for a clear, strong education sector response to it. The event also fostered a sense of dignity and ownership
among attendees, some of whom previously felt overlooked and unsupported by earlier processes of introducing
the school re-entry policy. Additionally, the meeting deliberations underscored the need to update current policies
based on issues emerging from the dialogue. To avoid policy misalignment, it would be essential for all related
policies to be reviewed simultaneously.
Lessons learned from the policy dialogue will be incorporated into future interventions under the project, including
an interactive media campaign that will target schools and communities, and advocacy activities with stakeholders
to promote adherence to the school re-entry policy implementation guidelines.
Participants came to the end of the meeting inspired to redouble efforts collectively in Homa Bay County and in
their individual schools based on lessons learned at the meeting. Feedback from school principals regarding the
policy dialogue was overwhelmingly positive, and included written statements such as the following:
Thank you very much for the workshop; it was an eye-opener. Quite a number of us were not aware of the policy. Now, I want to believe that our girls will be handled properly in our schools when they seek re-entry after delivery. Thank you abundantly for the wonderfully-conducted dialogue in Kisumu … It is only with this degree of commitment that our girl child and indeed all children will have a more assured brighter future. The exposure has opened up my eyes at both a personal and administrative level and things will never be the same again for all kinds of vulnerabilities in the school set-up. I wish to thank you sincerely for your encouragement for the girls who had dropped out of school to be given chance at school. Sincerely, I know the workshop was most useful to us principals
9
of secondary schools of Homa Bay. Thanks so much, for I know if the program is intensified, it will save many girls from our community. This was good. Keep it up. It was so well-organized … We are looking forward to a follow-up session.
The policy dialogue was brought to an official close by the Homa Bay County Teachers Service Commission
Director, Mrs. Diosiana Ahindukha. She implored the school principals in attendance not to overlook the issue of
unintended pregnancy in schools and the need for girls’ school re-entry. In her words: ‘Let us not bury our heads
in the sand as principals.’ She urged meeting participants to begin to use learnings from the policy dialogue to
effect change in their individual schools, and within the Homa Bay County education system as a whole. Mrs.
Ahindukha also asked that the Population Council take the concerns of the meeting participants seriously and use
the evidence emanating from the project to provide guidance for ensuring the reincorporation of out-of-school
teenage mothers into the education system. She concluded her speech with the following words: ‘Thank you,
Population Council, for the inclusive approach you have used in engaging us.’
10
References Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation, and Ministry of Education (2009). National School Health Policy. Nairobi: Government of Kenya.
Muganda-Onyando, R and Omondi M. (2008). Down the Drain: Counting the Costs of Teenage Pregnancy and School Dropout in Kenya. Nairobi: Centre for the Study of Adolescence.
Undie, C., Birungi, H., Odwe, G. and Obare, F. (2015). Expanding access to secondary school education for teenage mothers in Kenya: A baseline study report. STEP UP Technical Report. Nairobi
UNICEF (n.d.). Evidence-Based Advocacy for Gender in Education: A Learning Guide. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/eapro/advocacy_guide_FINAL4.pdf. [Accessed on February 12, 2015].
11
Appendix 1: Participant List
1. Margaret Kwame Centre for Social Sector, Education, and Policy Analysis
2. Diosiana Ahindukha Homa Bay County Department of Education
3. Moses O. Amoth Homa Bay County Department of Education
4. Stephen O. Barongo Homa Bay County Department of Education
5. Justus M. Ichwara Homa Bay County Department of Education
6. Bernhards C. Kogolla Homa Bay County Department of Education
7. William O. Minyiu Homa Bay County Department of Education
8. Calleb Omondi Homa Bay County Department of Education
9. Oriyo E. Otieno Homa Bay County Department of Education
10. Were R. Sospeter Homa Bay County Department of Education
11. Nicolas Camara Population Council (Intern)
12. Ian Mackenzie Population Council (Intern)
13. Janet Munyasya Population Council
14. Jane Musia Population Council (Consultant)
15. Francis Obare Population Council
16. Joyce Ombeva Population Council
17. Chi-Chi Undie Population Council
Homa Bay Sub-County
18. Rose N. Onditi Bondo Mixed Secondary School
19. Charles Ombogo Chiga Mixed Secondary School
20. Margaret Otieno Dr. Mbai Majiwa Secondary School
21. Andrew Aduda God Kado Secondary School
22. Nehemiah Ougo God Marera Mixed Secondary School
23. Ezekiel Okumu Gogo Katuma Secondary School
24. Ajigo Tom Gul Kagembe Secondary School
25. Beldine Ochieng Kuja Secondary School
26. Maurice Ajulu Lala Mixed Secondary School
27. W. Elisha Ludhe Dongo Mixed Secondary School
28. George Oyier Lwaho Mixed Secondary School
29. Ogaga J. Owuor Maguti Mixed Secondary School
30. Peter Oloo N. Marienga Secondary School
31. Odhiambo Lucy Anyango Marindi Girls Secondary School
32. Joyce Okwaro Nyakwadha Secondary School
33. Charles Owino Ober Nyalkinyi Mixed Secondary School
34. Charles O. Ogonda Nyandema Mixed Secondary School
35. Gordon Matengo Nyandiwa Mixed Secondary School
36. Samuel Odhiambo Okelo Nyanjanja Mixed Secondary School
37. John O. Ogeice Odienya Mixed Secondary School
38. Tobias Otieno A. Ogande Mixed Secondary School
39. Tom Mimba Oluso Mixed Secondary School
40. Peter O. Goga Omoche Mixed Secondary School
41. Hellen A. Odhiambo Ongeti Mixed Secondary School
42. Osoro Johnstone Onyege Secondary School
43. Nelson O. Yogo Opinde Mixed Secondary School
12
44. Pinto E. Arum Otaro Mixed Secondary School
45. Lawrence Oyamo Pala Masogo Secondary School
46. Millicent Onyango Rangwe Girls Secondary School
47. Atieno Mary Ouko Ruga Mixed Secondary School
48. Lucas A. Ogich St. Albert Chiepe Mixed Secondary School
49. Meshack Odieny Aseno St. Andrew’s Got Rabuor Secondary School
50. Thomas Otieno St. Elizabeth Koyo Secondary School
51. Kennedy Nyando St. Francis Anding’ O M Secondary School
52. Martin Awi St. John Kabok Secondary School
53. Richard O. Odhiambo St. Matthew’s God Bondo Secondary School
54. Silas Agira St. Paul’s Aoch Muga Secondary School
55. Obere Yunita Sero Mixed Secondary School
56. Daniel O. Obongo Wiga Mixed Secondary School
57. James H.O. Billa Wi’ Koteng Secondary School
58. Ogwayo John Otieno Wiobiero Mixed Secondary School
Mbita Sub-County
59. Opere Martin Father Tillen Secondary School
60. Ogweno P.C. Okoma Kamasengre Secondary School
61. Onyango Sana Z. Kamato Mixed D. Secondary School
62. Bernard Anyango Ochieng’ Kayanja Mixed Secondary School
63. Peter O. Ochieng Mauta Secondary School
64. Tom O. Ochola Ndhuru Secondary School
65. Collins D. Okeyo Ngodhe Secondary School
66. Stephen Ngesa Ogwel Nyakwei Secondary School
67. Walter O. Otie Nyandenga Secondary School
68. Arthur A. Nyawara Otieno Kajwang Nyamaji Secondary School
69. Peter J.O. Ouma Prof. Karega Mutahi
70. Mourice Ochieng Rapora Secondary School
71. Herine Abijah Rusinga Girls Secondary School
72. Agnes Juma St. Stephen Kirindo Secondary School
73. Ongong’a Pius Owuor St. William’s Osodo Secondary School
74. Meshack Awino Nyakado USAO Secondary School
75. Clement Ogweno Midam Wakula Secondary School
76. George O. Sewe Waware Secondary School
Ndhiwa Sub-County
77. Andrew Mbogo Wigwa Abura Mixed Secondary School
78. Otuka Charles Andiwo Mixed Secondary School
79. Benter A. Akendo Apoche Mixed Secondary School
80. Pamela Achieng Ageyo Bishop Ochiel Nyagidha Girls Secondary School
81. Hellen Awuor Opiyo Bongu Girls Secondary School
82. Ochieng Onyango Gina Mixed Secondary School
83. Daniel Waga Osanya Got Rahar Ojode Ndere Secondary School
84. Paul Nyawade Opiyo Joshua Ojode Ndere Secondary School
85. Janet Akoth Otieno Katanga Girls Secondary School
13
86. Kabaka E. David Koduogo Mixed Secondary School
87. Tom Okatch Kome Secondary School
88. Thomas O. Oyamo Langi Mixed Secondary School
89. Dickson Keta Mbani Secondary School
90. John Omolo Ouko Ojode Pala Mixed Secondary School
91. John Odongo Ojode Unga Mixed Secondary School
92. Auma Vincent Ouma Ongako Mixed Secondary School
93. Martin Owino Osure Mixed Secondary School
94. Victor N. Kibwana Otange Mixed Secondary School
95. Otwande Andrea Rapedhi Mixed Secondary School
96. Jaoko J. Phillip Sagama Secondary School
97. Monica A. Omolo St. Lucy’s Odhiambo Rambo Secondary School
98. Joseph O. Odhiambo St. Peter’s Rambusi Secondary School
99. Marystella Ogol Wanyara Mixed Secondary School
Rachuonyo North Sub-County
100. Joram Osarehongo Akwakra Secondary School
101. Abel Odira Ogola George Agola Owuor Secondary School
102. Vincent Andare Okumu Kamolo Mixed Secondary School
103. Tom O. Omolo Kamwala Mixed Secondary School
104. Tobias Omolo Kanam Mixed Secondary School
105. Makokha Zackary Karabondi Bidii Secondary School
106. Charles O. Guna Kendu Muslim Secondary School
107. Isaac O. Ouko Kobila Secondary School
108. Naftal J. Obiero Kodhoch Mixed Secondary School
109. Mathews Lunalo Koredo Mixed Secondary School
110. John Okwanyo Kotonje Mixed Secondary School
111. Reuben O. Kodiango Kowuour Secondary School
112. Samuel Wasilwa Lieta Mixed Secondary School
113. Jack Odongo Miyuga Mixed Secondary School
114. Malala Martin O. Ngeta Mixed Secondary School
115. Nyachira Odhiambo Nyakech Mixed Secondary School
116. Ouma O. Richard Ojijo Oteko Mixed Secondary School
117. Dennis Ochieng Omboga Mixed Secondary School
118. Daniel Gaya Osondo Mixed Secondary School
119. Omolo Nyakong St. Innocent Jonyo Secondary School
120. Belia M. Onjala St. John Seka Secondary School
121. Edith A. Ong’ore St. Joseph Kobuya Mixed Secondary School
122. George O. Omondi St. Joseph Miranga Secondary School
123. Ambonya Job St. Martins Oluti
124. Aloice O. Obonyo St. Mary’s Nyakango Secondary School
125. Oningu Moses O. Samanga Lutheran Secondary School
126. Joshua A. Amadi Siburi Mixed Secondary School
127. Ben Odiango Wagwe Secondary School
128. Philomena A. Osolo Wikondiek Secondary School
14
Suba Sub-County
129. Peter Wandera Wao Kiabuya Mixed Secondary School
130. Jacob Otieno Dibogo Kiembe Mixed Day Secondary School
131. Dominic Sure Kisaku Secondary School
132. Aggrey O. Mbori Kisegi Mixed Secondary School
133. Samwell Gogo Nyakiya Secondary School
134. Margaret A. Jamba Nyenga Mixed Secondary School
135. Fanny F. Odera Magunga Township Secondary School
136. Shelemiah O. Wagaluka Mark Matunga Kiwa Secondary School
137. Alphonce Odero Obanga Secondary School
138. Francis Okinyi Ombaka St. Marcelline Kigoto Secondary School
Rachuonyo South Sub-County
139. Vitalis A. Adega Mixed Secondary School
140. George Riwa Agoro Sare Mixed Secondary School
141. Hezbon Ombuyanyakongo Apondo Mixed Secondary School
142. Rose A. Omolo Atela Mixed Secondary School
143. Aninda D. Otieno Atemo Mixed Secondary School
144. Jared Ogwemo Buoye Mixed Secondary School
145. Kungu A. Mereza Danish Obara Mixed Secondary School
146. Arthur Oketch Dol Mixed Secondary School
147. Oguk G. Manasseh Gangre Mixed Secondary School
148. Ojuok Justus Okoth Got Agulu Mixed Secondary School
149. Ominde M. Michael Harambee Mixed Secondary School
150. Apaka Leonard Okoth Kachieng Secondary School
151. Odoyo Tubman G.B. Kadie Mixed Secondary School
152. Merab A. Obonyo Kakelo Mixed Secondary School
153. Eunice Opiyo Kalanding’ Mixed Secondary School
154. Okeyo Okuta Kilusi Mixed Secondary School
155. Ogutu Christopher Kolweny Mixed Secondary School
156. Pamela A. R. Kosele Mixed Secondary School
157. Joash Ojwang’ Awuor Kotienditi Mixed Secondary School
158. Mabel Aludira Kowidi Mixed Secondary School
159. George M. Abongu Lwanda Mixed Secondary School
160. Charles O. Alila Mithiu Mixed Secondary School
161. George O. Boro Nyabola Mixed Secondary School
162. Samuel Oluoch Owuor Nyafare Mixed Secondary School
163. Martin E. Odundo Nyakiya Mixed Secondary School
164. Daniel Owaka Nyalenda Mixed Secondary School
165. Okelo Samwel Nyambare Mixed Secondary School
166. Ochiewo Kenyatta Nyamwaga Mixed Secondary School
167. Eunice A Otieno Nyandiwa Mixed Secondary School
168. Ouma Godfrey Nyasore Mixed Secondary School
169. Richard Opiyo Nyatindo Mixed Secondary School
170. Oyoo Tabu Nywango Secondary School
171. Daniel Ouma Odoyo Obisa Mixed Secondary School
172. Ogola Jorim Ogilo Mixed Secondary School
15
173. Michael Akumu Ombek Mixed Secondary School
174. Orinda John Ongoro Mixed Secondary School
175. William Kapere Orera Mixed Secondary School
176. Rose O. Edna Orinde Mixed Secondary School
177. Paul Amolo Otel Mixed Secondary School
178. Elly Otieno Otondo Mixed Secondary School
179. Roche S. Onyalo Owiro Mixed Secondary School
180. Medrine K. Libaiga Pala Mixed Secondary School
181. Hezron A. Ayal Ponge Lutheran Secondary School
182. Joel Odongo Olielo St. Linus Umai Mixed Secondary School
183. Desmond O. Odongo St. Paul’s Oriang Secondary School
184. Tobias Gor Okeyo St. Peter’s God Agak Secondary School
185. Mark Olonde St. Phillip’s Nyabondo Secondary School
186. Ouma Frederick St. Teresa’s Nyalgosi Secondary School
187. David Onoka St. Thomas Omiro Secondary School
188. Moses O. Ayieko Siany Mixed Secondary School
189. Belliah O. Odero Yala Kotieno Secondary School
16
Appendix 2: Meeting Agenda
Homa Bay County Secondary School Heads Dialogue on Kenya’s School Re-entry Policy
Imperial Hotel, Kisumu
Friday, August 1, 2014
Time Activity Facilitator
8:00 Registration Population Council
9:00 Opening Prayer and Introductions Mr. Caleb Omondi - CQASO
9:30 Brief Survey Population Council
10:00 Opening Remarks Mr. Barongo - Homa Bay County Director of Education
10:15 Introduction to Program Chi-Chi Undie - Population Council
10: 45 TEA BREAK
11:15 School Re-entry Policy Chi-Chi Undie - Population Council
12:00 Best Practices & Barriers Francis Obare - Population Council
1:00 LUNCH
2:00 Best Practices & Barriers Cont’d Francis Obare - Population Council
3:00 Next Steps and Way Forward Chi-Chi Undie - Population Council
3:30 Final Thoughts Mr. Barongo - Homa Bay County Director of Education
4:00 Closing remarks Mrs. Ahindukha – TSC Director of Education, Homa Bay County
County Minister of Education, Homa Bay
4:30 TEA BREAK
Administrative Issues & Departure
Ministry of Education